I am very close to deleting my luminous landscape account because of the previous two posters. Waste of my time.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"- Carl Sagan

You're not the first one to claim incredible DR advantage for MFDBs. It seems you can't back your claims with verifiable data, and dismiss well-documented and falsifiable analysis which disagrees with your views with mere handwaving. That's just not good enough.

we're supposed to ignore DXOMark, despite the fact they they publish their methodology?

I wouldn't ignore DXOMark one bit. They have a specific methodology that gives you some useful information.

However, their approach also leaves out several critical components of the process a real-world photographer uses in the course of making a real-world image. A great example would be the impact of using raw processing software which was developed in-house by the same company that makes the hardware and firmware and the central goal of which is to squeeze every bit of data out of the raw file and present it in the most photographically pleasing way possible.

The best method continues to be (for those who are both interested and financially able to consider MF) to go shoot pictures with each system in a variety of situations that you would actually shoot for your work/pleasure and then see what you're able to get out of the files. Learning enough about each system to get the most out each (where to place exposure, what software to convert the files with which settings etc) is a not-small part of this and a dealer can help in this regard.

Here's a hint though: I've never once heard one of our customers complain the files they got from the digital back were less pliable/flexible than the files from their dSLR. Never.

I wouldn't ignore DXOMark one bit. They have a specific methodology that gives you some useful information.

However, their approach also leaves out several critical components of the process a real-world photographer uses in the course of making a real-world image. A great example would be the impact of using raw processing software which was developed in-house by the same company that makes the hardware and firmware and the central goal of which is to squeeze every bit of data out of the raw file and present it in the most photographically pleasing way possible.

The best method continues to be (for those who are both interested and financially able to consider MF) to go shoot pictures with each system in a variety of situations that you would actually shoot for your work/pleasure and then see what you're able to get out of the files. Learning enough about each system to get the most out each (where to place exposure, what software to convert the files with which settings etc) is a not-small part of this and a dealer can help in this regard.

Here's a hint though: I've never once heard one of our customers complain the files they got from the digital back were less pliable/flexible than the files from their dSLR. Never.

Good and valid points which have been put forward by you and others many times over. The problem I and many others have is that nobody seems to have well-documented and verifiable data to support claims of significantly higher DR of MFDBs, let alone the ill-defined and subjective areas of IQ MFDBs supposedly excel at, such as micro-contrast, tonality and tolerance to extreme post-processing. Having these same unsupported claims pop up on technical threads is not helpful.

Even then I am sure that MFDBs are better in almost all areas of IQ - the question is how much, and what is the ROI on MFDB vs. high-end DSLR. And I believe that was the point of the OP.

In the end I've always been fond of your approach: let the prospective buyer convince themselves. If someone can get significantly better IQ from a camera they're not used to (MFDB) compared to a DSLR system they've been working with for years, it's a testament to the IQ of MFDBs, no matter what the numbers say.

I had some very careful look at a couple of images from a Leica S2 and a Nikon D3X taken by Lloyd Chambers. Those images were taken with considerable care. My main interest was Aliasing and Moiré with the S3 lacking OLP filter (AA-filter) while the Nikon having one. I also checked into dynamic range, by "lifting" shadow detail.

The Leica S2 image obviously has better resolution, due to larger sensor and probably a better lens. The Nikon images require more sharpening.

Regarding the deconvolution issue it was started by Bart van der Wolf (I hope it's right?). Lloyd Chambers added a discussion of deconvolution initiated by Bart's recommendations. We than discovered that LR3/ACR 6.2 also has deconvolution. It works, but your mileage may vary.

We also had some reasoning about possible reasons for the perceived difference in MFDBs and DSLRs and Bart came up with the idea that MF having higher MTF may be a part of the explanation. MF will have higher MTF for a given feature size if all other factors are kept constant. Another factor we discussed was that lens/system flare is an area where MF may have an advantage. Some of this discussion may relate to Mark Dubovoy's comment on MFDB's having significantly more DR than DSLR "with full texture".

Fine texture is much affected by MTF at feature size. As MFDBs would have a larger feature size they would have a significant advantage regarding MTF. Also, some of the lenses available are very good.

Show me a verified test target (like USAF or similar) captured on 8x10 film (any kind) with an APO Sironar S of your choice that confirms corner to corner better than 30 lp's and a center better than 50 on all axis and all color channels, and I will gladly concede the point. The best 8x10 lens I ever owned was a 450 APO Ronar and it basically met those specs.

Show me a verified test target (like USAF or similar) captured on 8x10 film (any kind) with an APO Sironar S of your choice that confirms corner to corner better than 30 lp's and a center better than 50 on all axis and all color channels, and I will gladly concede the point. The best 8x10 lens I ever owned was a 450 APO Ronar and it basically met those specs.

¿Have you investigated the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses? ...are they only good for ULF?

¿Have you investigated the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses? ...are they only good for ULF?

If by investigated you mean tested personally, no. Firstly, they are really expensive, like $6000. Second, they are designed for one thing and that's coverage with their massive, nearly 1 meter IC's. Most folks that buy them are going to use them for ULF capture, and most folks that shoot ULF use their negatives to make contact prints. And a lens does not need to have particularly high resolution if its primary use is contact prints; something that rendered on the order of only 15 LP/mm across the frame would make an insanely detailed contact print even if viewed under a loupe.

If by investigated you mean tested personally, no. Firstly, they are really expensive, like $6000. Second, they are designed for one thing and that's coverage with their massive, nearly 1 meter IC's. Most folks that buy them are going to use them for ULF capture, and most folks that shoot ULF use their negatives to make contact prints. And a lens does not need to have particularly high resolution if its primary use is contact prints; something that rendered on the order of only 15 LP/mm across the frame would make an insanely detailed contact print even if viewed under a loupe.

Thanks...The only thing I miss from 25mm is long lenses... 640mm (with a 2* teleconverter when needed), giving about a 1 degree field of view.

¿Does anyone do a 10 micron CoC, 1 degree FOV lens for 645 MFD that I can use on my Sinar P2/3? (I do not have anything longer than 900mm, and that is a WW2 aero reccy lens (pre-digital).

Thanks...The only thing I miss from 25mm is long lenses... 640mm (with a 2* teleconverter when needed), giving about a 1 degree field of view.

¿Does anyone do a 10 micron CoC, 1 degree FOV lens for 645 MFD that I can use on my Sinar P2/3? (I do not have anything longer than 900mm, and that is a WW2 aero reccy lens (pre-digital).

I'd recommend a flatfield APO refracting telescope in the roughly 1200mm fl range (6 inch f/8, 5inch f/10, or 4-5 inch f5-6 with a 2X teleconverter). Or at least, the objective lens cell of one, if you want to put it on a Sinar lensboard. But I have to ask, what motivates you to use this sort of lens on a view camera? Considering wind, vibration, and maintaining optical alignment, I think you'd be far better off with the rigidity of a full-bodied lens/telescope.

I'd recommend a flatfield APO refracting telescope in the roughly 1200mm fl range (6 inch f/8, 5inch f/10, or 4-5 inch f5-6 with a 2X teleconverter). Or at least, the objective lens cell of one, if you want to put it on a Sinar lensboard. But I have to ask, what motivates you to use this sort of lens on a view camera? Considering wind, vibration, and maintaining optical alignment, I think you'd be far better off with the rigidity of a full-bodied lens/telescope.

I would not want optical alignment, as I would want to use movements for landscapes, house shots etc. Wildlife would be another application.

My 24" focal length f6 aero recy lens is about 6 inches across the front element... I suppose there is nothing to prevent me using a tele-convertor with that, but I do not think it would out-resolve a 6 micron sensor.

I would like a 5 * 4 inch 10 micron sensor... it would be great for WA, but not much advantage for narrow FOV.

I would not want optical alignment, as I would want to use movements for landscapes, house shots etc. Wildlife would be another application.

Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, or picky enough, but I cannot really see the need for movements with a field of view of only 1 degree. If you shoot a house with such a lens/telescope, won't you be so far away from it that the verticals will be vertical anyway? Maybe there's a little dof to be gained with Scheimpflug tilt, though, even with that acute angle of view.